issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 427 (2012) 21.11.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 22 judgments on Tuesday 27 November 2012. Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on the Court s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int) Tuesday 27 November 2012 Khachatryan and Others v. Armenia (application no. 23978/06) The applicants are 19 Armenian nationals who are Jehovah s Witnesses. Having applied to the authorities to perform alternative labour service instead of military service on religious grounds under the 2004 Alternative Service Act, they were each assigned to perform the service in various institutions such as hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries. In May and June 2005, they respectively informed those institutions that, since the alternative service was under the control of the military, they could not continue to serve in good conscience, and subsequently left their places of service. Placed in detention for several months following criminal proceedings brought against them for abandoning their service institutions which were eventually discontinued they complain that they were detained for an act which did not constitute an offence at the time, in breach of Article 5 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further relying in particular on Article 5 5 (right to compensation for unlawful detention), they complain that they were denied compensation for their unlawful detention. Chervenkov v. Bulgaria (no. 45358/04) The applicant, Zhivko Tonev Chervenkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and who is currently serving a sentence in Burgas Prison (Bulgaria). He was placed there in November 1996 to serve a sentence of life imprisonment. He was subjected to a special regime with the harshest conditions of detention. In June 2007 the sentence execution regime was changed to one with less severe conditions. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Chervenkov complains about the conditions of his detention in Burgas Prison. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13, he further complains about the monitoring of his correspondence with his lawyer and the authorities refusal to authorise him to have telephone conversations with her. M.N. v. Bulgaria (no. 3832/06) The applicant, M.N., is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Karlovo (Bulgaria). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), M.N. complains about the ineffectiveness of the investigation carried out into the rape of which she was the victim aged 14 and alleges that she had no effective remedy by which to protect her rights. Accompanied by her parents, she immediately filed a complaint after the rape, describing her four assailants and naming three of them. The next day a medical report of the rape was drawn up and the three individuals, having been charged, recognised their guilt and named a fourth culprit. M.N. twice attempted suicide in the following days. Between 5 October 1994 and 19 October 2004
no investigative steps were taken. On 19 October 2004 the individuals charged, when questioned again, retracted their statements and denied the charges. In January 2006 the applicant s lawyer complained to the public prosecutor s office about the length of the investigation and pointed out the risk that the proceedings might become timebarred. In April 2006 the prosecution was partially discontinued in respect of two of the assailants on account of a ten-year limitation period. Only one was found guilty and sentenced, the fourth having been declared unidentifiable in the proceedings. She further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Savovi v. Bulgaria (no. 7222/05) The applicants are five Bulgarian nationals who live in Smolyan (Bulgaria). Aleksandar Savov was the head of the Smolyan district police department between July 1997 and August 2001, and the other four applicants are his wife and children. In January 1998, an inspection commission of the Ministry of the Interior informed Mr Savov that his office and home had been subjected to covert surveillance by his inferiors since early December 1997. The surveillance was subsequently terminated and the commission established that a warrant for the surveillance had been issued by a court at the request of the chief of the criminal police and the chief of the Group for Operative and Technical Information, who suspected Mr Savov of links with criminal groups. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain that the surveillance was not in accordance with the law and that they did not have an effective remedy in that respect. Stamose v. Bulgaria (no. 29713/05) The applicant, Teodor Stamose, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Sheffield (United Kingdom). Having entered the United States on a student visa to then abandon his studies to take up paid employment, he was deported to Bulgaria in October 2003. Mr Stamose complains that the Bulgarian border police subsequently imposed a two-year travel ban on him for breaching the United States immigration laws. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he alleges that the ban was unjustified and disproportionate, and that it prevented him from travelling to the United States, where his mother and brother lived. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that the Bulgarian courts did not review the proportionality of the measure. Golubović v. Croatia (no. 43947/10) The applicant, Veselin Golubović, is a Croatian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Zagreb. In March 1994, he was suspended from his work as a professor of philosophy at the University of Zagreb for a period of six months and, in March 1995, his employment with the university was terminated. Mr Golubović brought two separate sets of civil proceedings against those decisions. His claims having eventually been dismissed, he complains that the Zagreb County Court deciding on his appeal against one of the lower-instance judgments lacked impartiality, as one of the judges participated in both sets of proceedings and had already adopted a judgment unfavourable to Mr Golubović. He relies on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial). V.K. v. Croatia (no. 38380/08) The applicant, V.K., is a Croatian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Zagreb. The case concerns V.K. s allegation that, even though he filed for divorce in April 2004, his marriage was only dissolved in January 2010 when he withdrew a paternity petition regarding his child, K., born in 2003. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the excessive length of the divorce and paternity proceedings and the resulting prolonged uncertainty as to whether he was the father of K.. He also complains under Article 12 (right to marry) that the excessive 2
length of the divorce proceedings prevented him from remarrying which, as a practising Christian and in a serious relationship since 2005, was of the utmost importance to him. Janiashvili v. Georgia (no. 35887/05) The applicant, Givi Janiashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Tbilisi. In July 2006 Mr Janiashvili was found guilty of illegally buying and concealing heroin in very large quantities and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. The case concerns his complaint about the excessive length of his detention pending trial with regard to the related criminal proceedings brought against him in 2004 and 2005. He also alleges that excessive force was used against him during his arrest at his home in the second set of proceedings in May 2005, which the authorities failed to investigate, and that he was then held in overcrowded cells in two prisons in Tbilisi without adequate medical care for his various psychiatric, hepatic and urological problems. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security). Lastly, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home), he alleges that the search of his home by investigators and the special forces in May 2005 was not lawful. Sáska v. Hungary (no. 58050/08) The applicant, Béla Sáska, is a Hungarian national who lives in Budapest. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Mr Sáska complains that the authorities refused his application to hold a demonstration in front of Parliament, in Kossuth Square, on 17 October 2008 to raise awareness among other things about a perceived absence of legal certainty in the country. He complains in particular that his application was refused on the ground that the demonstration could disturb MPs work even though on the proposed date of the demonstration no parliamentary activity was actually planned. Savičs v. Latvia (no. 17892/03) The applicant, Valerijs Savičs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1966 and is currently serving a life sentence in Jelgava Prison (Latvia) for, among other things, murder, robbery and rape. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Mr Savičs complains about the conditions of his detention in Daugavpils Prison where he was held between December 2004 and August 2009. He alleges in particular that the stringent regime in that prison for life-sentenced prisoners was inhuman and degrading he complains in particular about the prohibition on sitting on his bed during the daytime, his isolation, use of dogs to escort him within the prison and regular full body searches during which he had to strip naked and display his genitals for inspection. Tautkus v. Lithuania (no. 29474/09) The applicant, Andrius Tautkus, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Šiauliai (Lithuania). In 1996 Mr Tautkus was convicted of soliciting prostitution and the murder of a prostitute and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Mr Tautkus alleges that the prison authorities failed to protect him from another prisoner when a fight broke out between the two men in October 2002 and during which Mr Tautkus skull was fractured. Totally disabled as a result of that injury and requiring constant care, he was released from the remainder of his sentence in June 2003. Dimon v. Romania (no. 29117/05) The applicant, Constantin Dimon, is a Romanian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Predeal (Romania). Relying on Article 6 1 (right of access to court), Mr Dimon 3
complains that his appeal on points of law in a claim concerning the attribution of formerly nationalised land was rejected as it had failed to mention the defendant s official name and address. Pop Blaga v. Romania (no. 37379/02) The applicant, Elena Pop Blaga, is a Romanian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Oradea (Romania). The applicant, a judge at Bihor County Court at the relevant time, was charged with accepting bribes on the basis, among other things, of phone-tapping evidence, and was held at the police station in Oradea from 24 May to 22 June 2002, when she was released. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) she complains about her detention conditions at Oradea police station and the conditions of her transfer to Bucharest. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) she complains that the intercept evidence against her was obtained illegally. Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10) The applicant, Farit Fatykhovich Dirdizov, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lived until his arrest in the town of Nurlat (Tatarstan Republic). In December 2008 Mr Dirdizov was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. Released on bail in December 2010, he was ultimately convicted in March 2011 of aggravated theft and unlawful possession of firearms and sentenced to four years and one month s imprisonment to be served in a correctional colony. He was acquitted of the murder charge. Suffering from Bechterew s disease, a very serious condition which affects his musculoskeletal system, Mr Dirdizov alleges inadequate medical care during his detention both prior to his release on bail and following his placement in custody in March 2011 after his conviction. He relies in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also alleges that he has no effective avenues with which to complain about this lack of proper medical services. Lastly, he complains under Article 5 3 (right to liberty and security) that his pre-trial detention was excessively long. Kulikov v. Russia (no. 48562/06) The applicant, Sergey Nikolayevich Kulikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), he complains about appalling conditions of detention on account of overcrowding in Yekaterinburg remand prison following his arrest and remand in custody in March 2005 for sexually abusing two young boys and, following his conviction in August 2006, in a correctional facility in the Sverdlovsk Region. Horváth v. Slovakia (no. 5515/09) The applicant, Matej Horváth, is a Slovak national who was born in 1983 and lives in Bratislava. The case notably concerns his complaint that a request for release he made in January 2007 during his detention pending trial on various charges including oppression, unlawful restriction of liberty and robbery was not examined at all for almost nine months and the appropriateness of the redress he obtained in that respect at the national level. He relies on Article 5 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). Naumoski v. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 25248/05) The applicant, Velko Naumoski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Skopje. Mr Naumoski was a teacher in a Skopje High School until December 2000 when he was made redundant. The case concerns his complaint about the excessive 4
length and unfairness of the civil proceedings he brought following his dismissal in February 2001 because he refused to work in the school library after being made redundant. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), he notably complains that the domestic courts failed to communicate to him the defendant s observations submitted in reply to his appeals during those proceedings. Bayar and Gürbüz v. Turkey (no. 37569/06) The applicants, Hasan Bayar and Ali Gürbüz, are Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1971 and 1982 and live in Istanbul. They are the owner and editor-inchief of the Turkish daily newspaper Free National Agenda, which published on 25 March 2004 two articles about the PKK. Relying on Articles 10 (freedom of expression), and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain about their ensuing conviction for expressing ideas, through the press, against the indivisible unity of the State and the publication of statements from an illegal armed organisation. They also complain under 6 (right to a fair hearing) that, as a result of the dismissal of their appeal, they have been deprived of access to a court. Disk and Kesk v. Turkey (no. 38676/08) The applicants, the DİSK (Devrimci İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu Confederation of Revolutionary Workers Trade Unions) and the KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu Confederation of Public Employees Trade Unions), are two prominent trade unions in Turkey. The case concerns the trade unions complaint about the police intervention in the Labour Day celebrations on 1 May 2008 in Istanbul, during which members of the trade unions were sprayed with pressurised water, paint and tear gas. They rely on Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Mengi v. Turkey (nos. 13471/05 and 38787/07) The applicant, Nesibe Ruhat Mengi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Istanbul. She is a journalist and author of a number of books. In 2003 she wrote a series of articles in a daily newspaper, Vatan, criticising members of the commission set up to draft a new Criminal Code because the new draft proposed reduced sentences for certain offences committed against women and children such as honour killings and rape. The case concerns her complaint about the ensuing civil proceedings brought against her for defamation by members of the commission and in which she was ordered to pay them substantial damages. She relies in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Vilanova Goterris and Llop Garcia v. Spain (nos. 5606/09 and 17516/09) The applicants, M. Vilanova Goterris and P.T. Llop García, are Spanish nationals who live in Vila-real (Spain). The first was the Mayor of Vila-real, and the second the representative of a company which produced ceramic tiles. Relying on Article 6 1 (right of access to a court), the applicants complain about the lack of a public hearing before the Supreme Court in a case brought against them for excessive noise. Bilal Doğan v. Turkey (no. 28053/10) The applicant, Bilal Doğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1992 and lives in Batman (Turkey). In October 2009, when still a minor, Mr Doğan was arrested after a search of his home on suspicion of participating in three demonstrations in support of 5
the illegal armed organisation PKK. He was charged with assault on police officers and was remanded in custody. Relying on Article 5 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Doğan complains that he was held in police custody for three days before being heard by the public prosecutor. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), he complains about being tried before a special assize court. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains about a breach of his right to freedom of expression. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) he argues that his right to education has been breached as he was at school at the time of his arrest. Lastly, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains of the ineffectiveness of the automatic review of his pre-trial detention. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/rss/en. Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 6